inurafandomcom-20200214-history
Notes from Manuel
INURA ad hoc meeting for NMM, Berlin August 31st 2013 ' (Angela, Britta, Laura, Lorenzo, Penny, Bettina, Sabine, Manuel, Iacopo, Dimitra, Antonella from Italy, guest from Madrid) The discussion circulated around next steps to be done to bring forward the NMM project and book. After Lisbon there has been again silence in the network so this meeting was to collect what has been discussed as next steps in Lisbon and before. What needs to be written done first and a.s.a.p. is “The Guideline” (a term we agreed on to have clear and precise names for what we are talking about). Christian S. was supposed to write such a guideline after Lisbon. Our discussion aimed to enhance his task and to add deadlines. '“The Guideline” contains: *'Invitation' to new comers for the NMM project and a brief introduction what the NMM project is about and how it is to be done (see below). *(final as decided once more in Lisbon) Outline of the Book: **'Section I' ***Content: introductory texts, theoretical and methodological approaches ***Responsibles: Members of editing group ***Work progress: Christian is currently collecting old texts and notes to document the development of the NMM project since its beginnings **'Section II ' ***Content: maps and city portraits; all categories and mapping instructions (see also wiki) ***Responsibles: each participating city; coordinators (Britta, Iacopo?) **'Section III ' ***Content: (so far) 11 chapters of comparative analysis; writing/structure instructions ***Responsibles: contact persons for each chapter; editing group *'Time Schedule '– when is what to be done? ' ' ' ' ' ' So far, this was a summary of what we agreed on at the meeting; the following is my (Manuel) personal record of what I understood from this “lively” discussion. I share this here also for those who have not been at the last few discussions in the hope to maybe clarify where the NMM project seems to be at now: '' This time schedule provides a way to go forward '''if we really do want to continue' and finish the NMM project. It will require another 1, 5 years plus of collective work '''and the stamina to stick to it – by all participants. There are still several '''crucial questions unanswered which are problematic and that was debated at this meeting once more: - Professional transformation of the maps into good graphics: we all want to have nice maps in the end and we agree that this requires a second work step. The mapping group (Christian, Katerina, Iacopo) is working on the technical and design issues trying to produce a first prototype of what the final graphic could look like. Still, to do that for all maps requires work and who is going to do it? We have currently two options on the table: o “maximum standard”: a professional who is paid – open question is: how is that to be funded? o “minimum standard”: Christian offered that his students at ETH can transform the maps (similar to how it was done for 2010 first NMM exhibition) - Professional editing of the texts: '''the diverse set of texts requires a professional editing in the end that is obvious. Again, who is doing it? Similar to the graphics we have currently two options on the table: ' o “maximum standard”: a professional who is paid – open question is: how is that to be funded? o “minimum standard”: INURA members share the work. - '''Financing and Publishing:' Despite several attempts to find funding and a suitable publisher both have not succeeded so far. There are some options on the table which have been discussed before: o High quality publisher (yet no one at hand) o Florence University publisher – apparently a somewhat cheaper option? o E-book, Online publishing o Print on demand o Funding: ''' o Applying for grants? Application for EU funding was rejected; Antipode Foundation offers no money; …? ' o Crowd funding: all local INURA groups provide funding; an open crowd funding call All these essential questions and our discussions around it start and end with financing it. This is somewhat of a '''vicious circle' as many lose momentum when it is unclear what the product will be like and when it is so unclear what the product will be like (e.g. “is all the work worth it if there´s only an online page as the end result?”). Conversely, it was argued at the meeting, the halted work progress means as well that we have only rough and sketched products to convince publishers and financers. The compromise way to go which is proposed here (but actually wasn’t consensus even in this meeting!), is to continue the work now, to have all groups working again and to produce results which can be exchanged, discussed and appreciated at the next Conference. Rather than stopping all the way, the proposal is to go for a “minimum standard” first, to kick in momentum again and to clarify the pressing and crucial questions of financing editing, graphic transformation, and publishing on the way. Hopefully, the more interim products we produce of high quality (by summer next year there will be then more than a dozen maps in a new mapping, city portraits, and introductory and comparative texts) the likelier it will be to find financing and publisher … Category:Workshops notes